Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BJL on July 21, 2012, 10:44:41 am
-
Pardon me for jumping the gun slightly, but it is almost certain that Canon will announce on Monday its mirrorless camera system, "EOS-M" with "EF-M" lenses, in the same 22x15mm (a.k.a. "1.6x", "APS-C") format as its mainstream DSLRs and with an 18-55mm standard zoom and a 22mm f/2 wide prime. Persuasive images and details at sites like
http://www.canonwatch.com/
http://www.canonrumors.com/
I would expect it to have in-sensor PDAF, like the Canon 650D/T4i has.
-
This just shows how the mighty have fallen. A me-too model without a viewfinder!?
-
Why on Earth should Canon not be in this game, Slobodan? Do you actually object to them making some money?
Don't know if you noticed, but - just like Nikon and others - Canon makes cameras where you see through the lens and the lens comes off, too...
-
No articulated screen, I'm out. No finder, I'm out. No built-in flash, Im out.
Did I say I'm out?
Eduardo
-
Why on Earth should Canon not be in this game, Slobodan? Do you actually object to them making some money?
Don't know if you noticed, but - just like Nikon and others - Canon makes cameras where you see through the lens and the lens comes off, too...
Really? I mean really? Term apologist comes to mind, not for the first time.
-
Why on Earth should Canon not be in this game, Slobodan? Do you actually object to them making some money?
Don't know if you noticed, but - just like Nikon and others - Canon makes cameras where you see through the lens and the lens comes off, too...
What was that about!?
I never said, nor implied any of the above.
What I am objecting is the loss of the leadership position ("how the mighty have fallen" part). What I am objecting is a long string of yawn-inducing models coming from Canon, ever since the 5D Mark II. I do not remember when was the last time I was EXCITED about a Canon model (and I am a Canon user since the 70s). It is just a long string of me-too (belatedly), gradual improvements (again belatedly). Compare that with the long history of ground-breaking cameras and features (e.g., and not all-inclusive list): AE1, eye-focusing, D30, 5D, G10, etc.
-
if this thing has PDAF on the sensor that can track objects and focus quickly in low light, there is at least something to get excited about.
also, i'm happy that the pancake is 35mm-e f/2 and that the sensor is aps-c.
as for video, i wonder how smoothly it can pull focus. the touch screen functionality is key.
-
So does anyone want to try and predict the inevitable story that Michael will write?
Cons:
- lack of EVF
Pros:
- ASP-C
Commentary
- "about time Canon arrived at the party"/"Canon is too late"/....
-
no full frame? I'm out
-
The rumour sites (don't laugh, they have a good record of eventually filtering the information they receive and getting things right) did say that the first Canon CSC wouldn't be a top end model. So they got that right. They also say that other and more upmarket models will/may follow depending upon market reception.
As brand sells I expect this new Canon to sell, the only question is in what numbers and will those numbers prompt Canon to follow through with the more upmarket models currently hinted as being possible. Time will tell.
I own a Panasonic CSC but they seem to be asleep so I welcome Canon's entry into the market.
-
Certainly a camera able to take very competent images.
Now, I have a hard time understanding what it offers that the Nex7 hasn't been doing for a year though, probably with a sensor that is still a bit behind.
It seems like a defensive move aimed at providing EOS users with a more compact way to use their lenses? The leaked info doesn't convey the message that Canon is trying to win marketshare... Only that they are trying to slow down the migration from their existing customet base.
The difference btwn leaders and followers?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Great camera! If it were 2010.
-
It'll sell well simply because it's got the Canon name on it. In the consumer product market often all that's needed is for a major player - simply to show up.
But while competitors such as Sony's NEX 7 and Olympus' OM-5D offer wide-ranging features, great image quality and sophisticated user controls, what We know of the Canon M so far is singularly uninspiring for the enthusiast market.
Michael
-
Really? I mean really? Term apologist comes to mind, not for the first time.
Well I'm not so arrogant or full of my own self-importance that I expect Canon to build me my own perfect camera, Ben - but I'm no brand apologist: just ask me what I think about Canon's implementation of Auto ISO. And I actually jumped brand from Nikon to Canon after the Nikon D200, so I simply don't do "fanboy". You like bandying about the word "apologist" though, don't you?
So - aside from snide for snide's sake - what's your point, exactly? Do you have a point? Because there's a fundamental lack of "point" in your valued contribution...
I make no apology for liking my current Canon kit - it does what I need it to do, and you have to be a particular kind of tool not to be happy in that situation. Are you seriously telling me that I'm supposed to get on board with the pathologically dissatisfied complainers just to keep in with The Cool Kids?
I'm just not inclined to let trivial shortfalls get in the way of me getting what I want out of my gear: others would rather whine than work around pissy little problems, but I'm not like that, and frankly, mine is an attitude others could learn from...
-
... mine is an attitude others could learn from...
Like... modesty?
-
OK, cool it. This is not going anywhere pretty.
Michael
-
In the consumer product market often all that's needed is for a major player - simply to show up.
....what We know of the Canon M so far is singularly uninspiring for the enthusiast market.
So then it makes complete sense to introduce the camera, make a profit and serve the larger market, the general consumer.
-
But while competitors such as Sony's NEX 7 and Olympus' OM-5D offer wide-ranging features, great image quality and sophisticated user controls, what We know of the Canon M so far is singularly uninspiring for the enthusiast market.
Yes. it becomes increasingly clear what Canon's goals are - do enough to stay on top (or thereabouts.)
Whilst they may be a leader in terms of market dominance, they're definitely not playing the role of technology leader.
That said, the camera that is showing up on websites over the weekend is said to not be considered by Canon to be in the same market segment a the NEX-7/OM-5D. Perhaps the NEX-5?
-
I think Canon shows they are responsive to the market needs but not to do the system as a stand-along offer, it is more or less to take care the EOS/EF users so the camera can be a holiday-back up. I think it will work to a point and a higher model packed with more features to follow. SONY NEX-7 is still the most useful system at the moment and would be great if more E lenses are available but we don't know 2 years from now, may be different. I continue to fancy the Sigma, which started all these small P&S camera size with large sensor, can do something with interchangeable lens, I am getting my DP2 Merrill in 3 days, hope it would be a great camera.
Pingang
-
I think it is a predictable move from Canon. Let´s not forget the G1X, which also has a zoom, plus the nice articulated screen. The EOS-M is a small camera that takes EF lenses. It is nice to see that they are releasing it with a 35-e mm lens, and f/2, that is nice.
I already have a G1X, so I am served in the compact camera side. I am actually much more excited about the 22mm lens, this will be an ideal lens for travelling light, say, with a small DSLR.
-
Although I have a pretty good collection of Canon lenses, this camera does nothing for me. My Olympus OM-D EM-5 has a smaller sensor, but the image stabilization, faster lenses, and EVF (making it easier to hold steady) should more than make up for that. Using bulky full-frame lenses with an adaptor also rather defeats the purpose of having a smaller camera.
More generally, I find it annoying that each company feels the need to bring out its own system, with the honourable exception of Micro Four Thirds. Rather than numerous similar but incompatible systems, it would be much better to have one or two compatible systems, so that we could mix and match the best lenses and bodies from different manufacturers. Yet another sad example of the free market failing to serve the best interests of consumers.:(
-
To me this is pitched directly against the Nikon CX format, despite the sensor size difference, by the inclusion of the adaptor at launch. Like a lot of people with existing Nikon lenses I was initially attracted to the V1 for this reason. The V1's deficiencies - sensor performance; lack of external controls - made me reject it (in favour of an OM-D). I'd say that the many already apparent deficiencies of the Canon offering, lack of a vf for one, make it unattractive to the "serious amateur" who isn't already a Canon loyalist.
No doubt the development of both Nikon and Canon's offerings in this market sector will address their initial deficiencies. However the Nikon CX format will still permit small lenses...
Roy
-
Does it finally have an MLU switch instead of a direct print button? Oh, wait…
-
SONY is the first to include such adapters with more sense because it is just a 1.5X sensor, as does Canon's 1.6X sensor. Nikon V/J is a bit off except of course on the tele side.
Almost without doubt there will be more models from Canon, they will sell better than the Nikon V/J I suppose, but may be a tough fight against SONY.
I still think the NEX-7 is leading.
Pingang
To me this is pitched directly against the Nikon CX format, despite the sensor size difference, by the inclusion of the adaptor at launch. Like a lot of people with existing Nikon lenses I was initially attracted to the V1 for this reason. The V1's deficiencies - sensor performance; lack of external controls - made me reject it (in favour of an OM-D). I'd say that the many already apparent deficiencies of the Canon offering, lack of a vf for one, make it unattractive to the "serious amateur" who isn't already a Canon loyalist.
No doubt the development of both Nikon and Canon's offerings in this market sector will address their initial deficiencies. However the Nikon CX format will still permit small lenses...
Roy
-
EOS M EF-M 22mm STM Kit (http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_m_ef_m_22mm_stm_kit)
Canon EOS M: hands-on preview of Canon's first mirrorless EOS (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-m/)
Canon announces two EF-M lenses to accompany EOS M mirrorless camera (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/07/23/Canon-announces-EF-M-22mm-F2-0-STM-and-EF-M-18-55mm-F3-5-5-6-IS)
-
So it appears that "standard" EF lens will not work.
Dave S
-
Canon also announced an adapter to fit the EF lenses.
Alan
-
Lots of body colors -- obviously targeted at a market of which I am not a part.
-
Lots of body colors -- obviously targeted at a market of which I am not a part.
Yes, with four body colors but not even a connector for an accessory EVF, or a tiltable screen, this is clearly not aimed at the photographic enthusiasts found in forums like this. It is instead a first model aimed at the far larger market for a small, simple camera as step-up to an interchangeable lens system. Today, that probably means jumping straight from a camera-phone, and this camera offers the most phone-like touch-screen interface of any system camera so far.
Looking beyond this model, Canon does seem to have set fairly good foundations for future development of the system, like offering the best lens backward compatibility options of any mirrorless system through the combination of PDAF with using the sensor size for which most Canon DSLR lenses (the EF-S ones) are designed. The huge number of EF and EF-S lenses already in use will help.
Still, my preference for any such "compact system camera" is looking forward not backward to old lenses, and using the most compact kit that gets the job done or will son as technology advances. Since 4/3" format (and maybe even Nikon's 1" format) looks able to do that for me, the lenses for this or any "APS-C" system (zoom and telephotos at least) seem doomed to make my desired kit bulkier than other viable options. Starting with that very NEX-like, 61mm long, non-collapsing 3x standard zoom. But perhaps I should wait to see what Canon offers for telephoto zooms.
-
The rumour sites (don't laugh, they have a good record of eventually filtering the information they receive and getting things right) did say that the first Canon CSC wouldn't be a top end model. So they got that right. They also say that other and more upmarket models will/may follow depending upon market reception.
That leads to another question : will that top-end model be closer to 2k or 3k? ::)
I am actually much more excited about the 22mm lens, this will be an ideal lens for travelling light, say, with a small DSLR.
Alas! It's in shorter-flange EF-M mount, so it won't fit on a DSLR, only a mirrorless.
Does it finally have an MLU switch instead of a direct print button? Oh, wait…
You're kidding, but it's quite a revolution : there is no direct print button! OMG!
But for me, having both EF, EFS and µ4/3(MFT) lenses, I'd rather buy a GF3 in sale.
-
I had an interesting experience working with a photo neophyte. After seeing my good results carrying my Olympus Pen camera in China, she was interested in buying it second-hand. After borrowing it, she was frustrated that she couldn't get good pictures of her daughter's school play or gymnastics or anything for that matter. She wondered outloud..."do I need to get one of those big honkin' DSLRs to catch those shots." ...I had to talk her back away from the edge. I explained that unless she wanted to engage in some substantial photo-education she wouldn't get much better results from the DSLRs either. What I learned from her response is that to the mass-market, these smaller mirrorless cameras bring with them the baggage of inferiority from the digicams because they share the form factor. In the end, smaller form factors with larger sensors may remain the only the purview of the enthusiast because they are the only ones able to appreciate and work with their strengths and weaknesses.
As for my other responses to the canon mirrorless camera. I don't like that it only has two lenses that are sized right. I can't imagine putting my 24-105 on that body and actually using it. Of course, that is pretty absurd. How about my 100-400. Nope, that would not be a practical rig either. The compatibility with EF and EF-S lenses is mostly just a novelty. Some folks may use them in a pinch, but not for regular toting around.
The manufacturers that, to me, have a leg-up in this middle-ground mirrorless camera (between up and coming camera phones and full frame DSLRs) need to have a good collection of matched compact lenses. MFT has that, and they seem to be getting better on their sensor technology. Panasonic and Olympus could find themselves a niche between the down-market moves of full frame and the up-market moves of camera phones. Sony seems to also have a decent play here, but their lenses are still pretty big. They miniaturized the body, but not the glass.
So, mini-DSLRs without the lens have the liability of an inferiority complex gotten from digicams, and the liability of big lenses from their DSLR brethren.
I can't imagine the ergonomics of this little wonder will be anything other than abysmal. Touch screens are not great for making pictures.
-
they will sell better than the Nikon V/J I suppose
It seems that the J1 is in fact selling well, at least in Japan.
I find the concept and target audience to be more clear and coherent. It is super simple to use, has a matching very streamlined design, focuses extremely well and has a sensor that is excellent compared to those of compact cameras, and not that bad in absolute terms. The 1 series is clearly and absolutely not designed for us experts, but it matches near perfectly the needs of the population it was designed for.
The Canon seems to be the result of many internal compromises inside Canon and ends up being incredibly middle of the road... too much camera and not sexy enough for fashion camera folks, not differentiated enough performance wise for experts, if the current performance level is an indication... too slow for everyone.
There is little doubt that it will sell well, mostly thanks to the Canon logo and marketing machine though but it seems very defensive a move.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The Nikon J1, at least in some geopgraphical areas, has come down quite a lot in price. The new EOS-M seems to be rather similar to the J1, but with a much larger sensor, better build, and touch screen. No doubt later on we will something more "serious" on this EOS-M series.
I am just happy to see all the big ones entering the fray of the "small camera, large sensor" market segment; I am also happy to see that Canon has chosen a APS-C sensor, like the Fuji X100, Leica X2, and Sigma DP cameras.
Indeed, I initially presumed that the 22 mm lens could be used on a DSLR, but no... well, here is hoping for a similar lens for a DSLR, with IS!
-
I can't imagine putting my 24-105 on that body and actually using it. ... The compatibility with EF and EF-S lenses is mostly just a novelty.
I am just a bit less skeptical about SLR lens adaptors for mirrorless system cameras. I agree that in practice, most users will start with one or two of the small, light lenses designed for the new system and leave SLR lenses behind, maybe adding more dedicated lenses later. But I can see an adaptor being useful in the transition for people with a bunch of lenses for their "APS-C" format DSLR, in particular for keeping a good telephoto lens in use. With longer, faster lenses, there is little opportunity for a dedicated mirrorless lens design to be much smaller or lighter than existing SLR designs, so there is more advantage to being able keep using the SLR telephoto lenses one has. Particularly since I suspect that telephoto lenses faster than f/5.6 at the long end will be slow to come to mirrorless systems. For me it would not be an EF lens but my Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5, which does not yet have any counterpart in any mirrorless system.
One fly in the ointment about EOS-M's "Unique Selling Point" of having PDAF with an APS-C format sensor: it seems that tests of this hybrid of in-sensor PDAF and CDAF in the 650D/T4i show it to be far inferior to Canon's SLR PDAF poor when used with "legacy" SLR lenses, and slower overall than the CDAF in recent m4/3 bodies. But it is first generation technology, so that might improve quickly.
By the way, I am still totally perplexed by the complaints about "big lens, small body imbalance": surely big lenses are normally supported and balanced by a left hand (or tripod) under the lens barrel, not with both hands on the camera body!? Canon does have a cute idea in the tripod mount on its EF-M to EF lens adaptor!
-
... I am still totally perplexed by the complaints about "big lens, small body imbalance":..
Visually.
-
I think most photographers will prefer to use those really big lenses on the larger bodies. The auto focus performance and balance of the device will be far more conducive to the typical applications for the large telephotos we are discussing--things like sports and wildlife in particular. The barrier to entry into these fields is already high with the prices of super telephotos, in particular. I don't think a mirrorless body is likely to see its way to the football sideline or to serious wildlife photography anytime soon.
-
Visually.
not just visually. photographing birds in flight, for example requires good balance. The relationship between the photographer and camera becomes more like a person shooting skeet. Things need to be balanced and fluid. The shape and size of the camera as well as the performance of the viewfinder/screen really can have a big impact on tracking in telephoto action photography.
-
fike, there are two separate issues here.
1. The technical advantages of large professional DSLRs in AF, frame rate and so on. No dispute there, but there is a lot more to telephoto lens usage than BIF and professional sports, and this has little connection to my comment about balance, referring to the endless drivel from some (not you) about the difficultly of supporting a heavy lens with the tiny handgrip of a small body, as if any competent photographer support a big lens that way. As to snickering at images of 600mm lenses on 200g bodies: that is merely a "visual" issue as Slobodan indicated, and not what I was commenting on at all. So back to what I was actually commenting on ...
2. Balance. How does a lighter body cause problems at all? Are you assuming that the position of the left hand on the lens barrel is rigidly prescribed? Surely one can achieve equally good balance by placing one's left hand a few centimeters further forward on the lens barrel with a lighter body, a few cm back with a heavier one. In fact, the bigger and heavier then lens, the less variation needed for a given change in camera body weight: the balanced hand position will be very close to the center of mass of the lens regardless of body.
-
fike, there are two separate issues here.
1. The technical advantages of large professional DSLRs in AF, frame rate and so on. No dispute there, but there is a lot more to telephoto lens usage than BIF and professional sports, and this has little connection to my comment about balance, referring to the endless drivel from some (not you) about the difficultly of supporting a heavy lens with the tiny handgrip of a small body, as if any competent photographer support a big lens that way. As to snickering at images of 600mm lenses on 200g bodies: that is merely a "visual" issue as Slobodan indicated, and not what I was commenting on at all. So back to what I was actually commenting on ...
2. Balance. How does a lighter body cause problems at all? Are you assuming that the position of the left hand on the lens barrel is rigidly prescribed? Surely one can achieve equally good balance by placing one's left hand a few centimeters further forward on the lens barrel with a lighter body, a few cm back with a heavier one. In fact, the bigger and heavier then lens, the less variation needed for a given change in camera body weight: the balanced hand position will be very close to the center of mass of the lens regardless of body.
I agree with most of what you are saying. I am, after all, planning to get the adapter to allow me to mount my Canon 400 f/4 on my OM-D, but that usage is going to be fairly uncommon. I think if I were to use that combination, it would be a situation that I was working from my car, so I wouldn't have any substantial reason NOT to go ahead and use my large Canon DSLR that I am also carrying in the car. What these smaller cameras excel at is going light for travel, street photography, or more extended backcountry trekking where you aren't likely to be carrying these big guns anyway.
Balance-wise, generally serious work with larger super-telephotos is done tripod mounted--often with a gimbal head. I am sure someone will make an 'L' bracket or something to work with these combos, but I personally think it will be a corner case of actual usage.
Big lenses on small mirrorless bodies won't feel right and will diminish the convenience and portability that the small body brings.
-
my Canon 400 f/4 on my OM-D, ... I think if I were to use that combination, it would be a situation that I was working from my car, so I wouldn't have any substantial reason NOT to go ahead and use my large Canon DSLR that I am also carrying in the car. What these smaller cameras excel at is going light for travel, street photography, or more extended backcountry trekking where you aren't likely to be carrying these big guns anyway.
That is an excellent point: mostly, if one already has some serious big SLR lenses and an SLR, you might as well keep using them on that SLR body, with its superior AF and so on. My telephoto lenses are not as big and heavy as the ones you mention, so I still see a reason for keeping one or two nice specialty lenses (like my 1Kg 50-200/2.8-3.5) in _occasional_ use without carrying a second, SLR, body (which would add another 500g at least to my hiking kit) just for those lenses.
The more common case might be the person starting from scratch with system cameras who has never owned an SLR or lenses for it, chooses a compact mirrorless system for the main use case of a lightweight system, and then just occasionally wants to carry a bigger or more specialized lens that is not yet available for that system, without having to buy an SLR body just for that lens.
But both are stop-gaps and edge cases, and now Olympus, Panasonic and Sony have extra incentive to keep the m43 and NEX lens system development well ahead of Canon's EF-M, to make the point that you do not need to rely on the fiddle of adaptors if you choose a more mature, complete mirrorless system.
-
How does a lighter body cause problems at all? Are you assuming that the position of the left hand on the lens barrel is rigidly prescribed? Surely one can achieve equally good balance by placing one's left hand a few centimeters further forward on the lens barrel with a lighter body, a few cm back with a heavier one. In fact, the bigger and heavier then lens, the less variation needed for a given change in camera body weight: the balanced hand position will be very close to the center of mass of the lens regardless of body.
I have been equally baffled by the "balance" argument - usually in the context of "gotta have a heavy 1 series to balance a heavy lens properly", as a reason to get a heavy camera or partly justify a grip. The centre of gravity of a rig will vary depending on which body and which lens are combined, and then one adjusts the way one holds the combo accordingly. Making the whole thing heaver doesn't make it easier to balance, unless you have to have your left hand in a specific position (e.g. 2.83 inches from something specific :D ) Now, the need to manipulate a touchscreen when handholding a telephoto on a mirrorless, VF-less camera strikes me as something one might be concerned about. If you have the lens on a foot and tripod, you may as well take the DSLR along in the first place and have the mirrorless in the pocket (to balance your footing :D)
-
seems to me the slow CD AF with the EOS lenses and adapter severely limit the usefulness of the EOS-M as a backup body
-
I currently have a three-tier system of Nikon FF, Panasonic MFT and several pocket cameras (I just bought the new Sony RX100 today and spent some time shooting around with it, and it'll replace my aging Canon S90.)
As somebody who shoots a range of cameras, and who is not wedded to any particular brand, the new Canon struck me as a kind of bone-headed gesture toward the growing interest in compact mirrorless systems. If you're going to have an interchangeable lens system, shouldn't you, uh, have more than two lenses? If you're going to have a modern camera, especially one that you advertise as being able to use heavier lenses from your larger systems, shouldn't it offer IBIS? Especially when you build that into shirt-pocket cameras that cost 1/4 as much? If one of the two lenses you offer is a 22mm apparently aimed at the street-shooter market, shouldn't it have near-instantaneous auto-focus; reviews say it's sorta slow. A lot of very small cameras have optional EVF...why not this one?
To me, this seems like a marketing blunder. It's too late to stick a toe in, just to test the water. There are all kinds of people already selling competitive cameras, and they've got full systems out there, and they're extremely good. The biggest impact this camera may have is to convince people that they don't want a Canon mirrorless system. I expect image quality will be good, but you know what, so's the image quality in all the larger-sensor cameras now, from the J1 up.
As to the balance issue, there's nothing particularly baffling about it. If I'm handholding, say, a Nikon D3 with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom, I'll have both elbows pressed against my body and the camera will touch my face -- essentially, a kind of human tripod, with the camera weight pressing my arm bones down into my body. I hardly need any arm muscle at all to support the camera. If I try to shoot a long lens with a very small body with no EVF, my hands no longer press down into my body -- my elbow touches my body, but my forearm has to stick almost straight out so that I can focus on the LCD. That means the weight of the lens and camera has to be supported almost entirely by arm muscle, so that gravity is an enemy rather than a friend, and that leads to unsteadiness. Note that when I'm using my Panasonics, I don't stick my hands way out in front of myself (usually), but I do support my elbows against my body. But, it's not as steady as a larger camera with a viewfinder. It just isn't.
-
seems to me the slow CD AF with the EOS lenses and adapter severely limit the usefulness of the EOS-M as a backup body
@stever:
- the good news is that the EOS-M sensor has PDAF built-in (as in the Nikon One cameras), which would _seem_ to promise far better AF performance with adaptor-mounted SLR lenses than with only CDAF.
- the bad news is that reviews of this technology so far, via the Canon 650D/T4i which has the same sensor and hybrid AF system, suggest that it is rather slow, and far behind Canon's "real", SLR, AF performance and behind the CDAF of some some mirrorless cameras like recent Olympus and Panasonic models. I would give the benefit of the doubt if the slowness were just in the pre-production EOS-M bodies as mentioned by John Camp, but the 650D AF performance is in final production versions.
@John Camp: you raise a different aspect of the balance issue: not camera size, but the lack of any "eye-level" viewfinder or "forehead rest" making it harder to hold a big, heavy camera steady. There I agree: composing "on the screen" can be OK with lightweight cameras (or when tripod mounted), but I also find it problematic when hand-holding a larger, heavier camera.
Points like
- this poor performance of the in-sensor PDAF/CDAF (compared to Nikon's hybrid AF or the Olympus and Panasonic pure CDAF systems),
- the very minimal initial lens offerings,
- not even an accessory EVF option, and
- the fact that the kit of body and 22/2 ( the only way to buy it in the USA) lacks IS either in body or in lens
all suggest that Canon is making a slow, unenthusiastic and minimal response to a trend that it does not care for, perhaps because it has more to lose than any other camera maker if entry level SLR sales are lost to mirror-less systems.
-
I would like to see the mirror box be done away with in all cameras, especially full-frame DSLRs. It's a throwback from the days of film and with the advent of high resolution eye-level video finders its design will become obsolete. Camera optics will take a huge quantum leap in quality once retro-focus designs are no longer the norm.
We're seeing the beginning of the end of the reflex mirror box.
As an alternative to the flapping mirror, how about a pellicle mirror? When I used the Canon F-1 N Pellicle (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1966-1975/1972_f1ko.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=1966-1975&p=1) (9 frames per second!), the mirror absorbed a half-stop of light. Now that mid-high ISO values are not noisy, a half-stop is a minor nuisance. The added bonus is that the sensor would be isolated from dust and debris.
-
This just shows how the mighty have fallen. A me-too model without a viewfinder!?
I have to agree with this statement. I was actually holding out for ages to see what Canon would come up with and gave up waiting to get the Sony Nex 7. Seeing the specs on the Canon -M made me glad I went for the Sony! Pity really.
John
-
I have to agree with this statement. I was actually holding out for ages to see what Canon would come up with and gave up waiting to get the Sony Nex 7. Seeing the specs on the Canon -M made me glad I went for the Sony! Pity really.
John
Me too. I gave up and went with the OM-D. When their Canon G1X was announced, I was briefly intrigued, but the infatuation quickly wore off...same with EOS-M.
Canon won't cannibalize their entry-level DSLR sales until they absolutely have to. They are behaving a bit like Kodak in following the short-term money off a cliff. If there are one or two more transformative innovations along the lines of high-quality camera phones, D800, or mirrorless cameras, they may put themselves in a tailspin they can't recover from. I don't think they are there yet, but it isn't hard to imagine that happening.
-
I agree with some of the comments that Canon is a bit late to the party. I too, like the comment above, am using a three tier system...Canon FF, Panasonic MFT and LX3. For a mirrorless semicompact system the GH2 fits my needs perfectly and don't see how Canon M adds anything especially given awkward interchangeability of lenses and limited choices of pure M lenses. As I do a lot of hiking and having just returned from Yosemite the GH2 was great on days when I don't feel like lugging 40 lbs of gear on the trail.
Sam
-
Check this out:
After just two days on the Top 100 Bestselling Cameras on Amazon, Canon M is already trending down (note the red arrow). Currently #6.
Sony RX100 is still #1, after 42 days.
Nikon D800 is #5, but trending up, after 144 days.
The whole list here (http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-camera-photo/zgbs/photo/ref=pd_dp_ts_p_1).
-
Check this out:
After just two days on the Top 100 Bestselling Cameras on Amazon, Canon M is already trending down (note the red arrow). Currently #6.
Sony RX100 is still #1, after 42 days.
Nikon D800 is #5, but trending up, after 144 days.
The whole list here (http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-camera-photo/zgbs/photo/ref=pd_dp_ts_p_1).
That's a pretty interesting list to comb through. I found these amusing. Someone is obviously still making money off film.
-
The underwater disposables make sense for beach vacation fun, and I think the disposable camera ten packs are popular for the tables at wedding banquets.
But those Amazon lists are a bit hard to take seriously: #2 and #3 are versions of the "GoPro HD HERO2" (what?!).
-
But those Amazon lists are a bit hard to take seriously: #2 and #3 are versions of the "GoPro HD HERO2" (what?!).
Neat little cams, those!
I think that puts some perspective on the relative sizes of the various demographics in the camera-buying world. All the youth with skateboards skis mountain bikes ziplines skydiving etc etc you name it are snapping them up - easier than strapping some of the other things on a helmet - these even come with a range of mounting options. No EOS-M for those guys :D
-
Canon M positioning...
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/does-this-help.html
They seem to be a bit lost... their choice of axis is scary for still photographers (who don't seem to matter much) but still doesn't make much sense relative to the needs of customers. What the heck does creativity means?
It is always fascinating to notice to what extend the strategic product planning issues of companies end up faithfully translating in the specs of their products. In fact, the better a company is able to execute, the more strikingly obvious the hesitations of the high management show on the shelves of stores.
Cheers,
Bernard